By @LOLGOP

WATCH: Rand Paul’s Terrible Obamacare Answer On The Daily Show

August 15, 2013 4:37 pm Category: Memo Pad, Memo Share, Politics 63 Comments A+ / A-

Over the past few weeks, Rand Paul has racked up an impressive list of things he doesn’t understand, including Abraham Lincoln, why people like Medicarethe deficit and reality.

You can now add Obamacare to that list, along with health care in general — even though he is an ophthalmologist.

When the senator visited The Daily Show this week, host John Oliver asked Paul to do something he apparently has never had to do before: defend his opposition to the Affordable Care Act.

After making one decent point –that the reason most people aren’t insured because of “the expense” — he offered terrible example after terrible example to justify his opposition to the law.

He blamed government for the high cost of care and then used an example of the two “products” he offered as an eye doctor that went down every year because they weren’t covered by insurance: LASIK and contact lenses. He credited market forces for the drop in costs without pointing out that neither of these things is often purchased in an emergency, the way heart surgery or an appendectomy is. You can shop for contacts but you can’t shop for a cast when you need a broken bone set.

That was pretty bad, but at least the power of market forces in health care is debatable.

Actual costs aren’t.

Paul engaged in exactly the kind of misinformation the right is trafficking in to dissuade people from actually signing up for coverage when open enrollment begins on October 1.

“You have a young audience and you tell them ‘Oh you must buy insurance,'” he said. “But they say ‘but I only make $30,000 a year and your insurance now costs $15,000. So how is that mandate going to work?’ I have employees for a small business and there is no insurance. How can they buy insurance if they make $30,000 and insurance costs $15,000?”

Well, good thing insurance won’t cost $15,000 or even near half that. How do we know this 100 percent for sure?

By law — yes, the Affordable Care Act — it can’t.

At $30,000 a year, buying insurance on your own through an exchange, you can’t pay more than 8.37 percent of your income, or $2,512, for health insurance. And in the worst-case scenario where you become sick and need to see a doctor often, you won’t spend more than $6,350 a year out of your own pocket.

This is why Occupy Democrats‘ Courtney Lynn wrote that Rand Paul accidentally made the case for Obamacare while trying to bash it.

Rand Paul could have used the real numbers if he’d visited the Kaiser Foundation’s Subsidy Calculator.

But making up his own Randian reality is the senator’s specialty.

Screen Shot 2013-08-15 at 4.07.14 PMPhoto: Screenshot via The Daily Show

 

WATCH: Rand Paul’s Terrible Obamacare Answer On The Daily Show Reviewed by on . The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook Over the past few weeks, Rand Paul has racked up an impressive lis The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook Over the past few weeks, Rand Paul has racked up an impressive lis Rating:

More by @LOLGOP

Republicans Still Think You’re Stupid

What the Jonathan Gruber sideshow reveals about today's GOP.

Read more...

5 Things To Tell Your Republican Relatives At Thanksgiving Dinner

The definitive guide to dealing with your Fox-addled family members.

Read more...

Even ‘Moderate’ Republicans Are Bent On Sabotage

Scott Brown is a Veep character who thinks he’s on House of Cards. After becoming the first Republican elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010, his greatest accomplishment as a U.S. senator was helping banks rewrite Wall Street reform so it might protect “two financial institutions in Massachusetts from the Volcker Rule’s restrictions,” according to former

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Lynda Groom

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The young man is not very bright. Neither are those who paid his way into the dance.

  • kanawah

    Lynda, Did you see any of his campaign rallies. Over half of the audience was either was either on oxygen, in a power chair, or both. One of his “big things” before the republican dog catcher put a muzzle on him, was to put a $2000.00 deductible on Medicare, and greatly reduce Social Security.

    The people who voted for him voted against their own interest.

    • samantha657

      what Valerie answered I am startled that any one can earn $6076 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you seen this webpage w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

    • InsideEye

      I believe President Obama transferred Medicare funds into ACA.

      • JO

        The funds you are talking about came from eliminating duplication of services, overpayments to providers and fraud.

      • dancerboots

        Again wrong. It was the savings accumulated (over a ten year period) that Republicans propagandized were cuts. Not one cent of Medicare funds were transferred into the AHCA.

  • FredAppell

    This man’s logic is twisted….competition has not created cheaper prices in the market.
    We have all heard horror stories from people on this very site describing how they are spending $600, $700 or even over $1000 a month in premiums. That may lower your deductible and co-pay but what good does that do when your monthly payment takes a 1/3 or 1/2 of your monthly income. Rand Paul isn’t worried, he said it himself, he is an eye surgeon which makes him a specialist and no matter what happens, he will still get paid. He also said young people should have a higher deductible because they’re healthier, someone should remind him that young people are far more prone to engaging in riskier behavior (i’m not talking about sex) which makes them at least as likely as the rest of us to need emergency care .

    • steve o

      Anyway, he’s a politician now; he’ll probably never operate on an eye again.

      • FredAppell

        I’m sure you’re right but he is now in a position to do a great deal of harm.

        • Allan Richardson

          In other words, the public would rather have a stick in the eye?

          • FredAppell

            Maybe so. Can you imagine what his rates must have been?

    • Dominick Vila

      When my eldest son started his own small business a few months ago and he tried to get COBRA insurance coverage he was quoted $1,300 a month for individual coverage, and over $4,000 A MONTH for a family plan. Needless to say, he opted to wait until ACA is fully implemented and he can join an exchange to get coverage at affordable prices. In the interim he is going to an urgent care facility to be treated for type 1 diabetes and other medical complications.

      • FredAppell

        That’s insane, but Rand Paul claims that the market takes care of everything. If you’re being paid thousands of dollars to say that than
        I guess it sounds logical. I haven’t even bothered to look into insurance yet, like your son, I have decided to wait for the ACA to kick in.

        • Sand_Cat

          Well, actually, it does. Under the “free-market” plan, those who can’t afford health care die off relatively quickly, which solves a lot of the Republicans’ problems, if not the country’s (which would still be stuck with those Republicans not among those who couldn’t afford health insurance).

          • Allan Richardson

            And depending on your beliefs about an afterlife, it may or may not solve the patients’ problems. Too bad the dead really CAN’T vote as the Republicans accuse them of doing; we would have all the people who died from lack of health insurance (about 45,000 a year) to vote against the GOP. Hopefully their survivors will vote instead.

          • InsideEye

            The dead do apparently vote in Chicago.

          • Sand_Cat

            So you say. Happily, you can use this as an excuse to prevent the living from doing so, too, if their likely preference is one you dislike.

          • InsideEye

            Nay, one man one, vote, as stated before by some. Many people agree that some sort of ID is necessary when you first register, this follows one around for the rest of your voting life. You have an interesting way of putting words in people’s mouth, when it is not the way they think. Fraud does occur , during, and insiders adjusting the numbers. We have to have one standardized system that assures the integrity of the system.

          • Sand_Cat

            Please don’t accuse me of your faults. The evidence of intent for these laws is glaringly obvious. Just because you choose to ignore facts does not absolve you of responsibility for the easily-foreseeable consequences of supporting laws to combat non-existent fraud which contain provisions clearly intended to aid and abet fraud by denying citizens of their right to vote without justification, so don’t accuse me of putting words into other people’s mouths.

            It is clear that many of the people supporting these monstrosities have convinced themselves that there’s no way Romney could have lost without some sort of fraud, so in addition to there other faults, these laws are a case of sour grapes as well as a denial of reality and an attempt to alter reality by “solving” a problem other than the real one: the lunatics who control the GOP refuse to accept that – whatever faults they have – the majority of voters are not neo-Nazis, and won’t support people who talk and act like neo-Nazis. At least, not yet.

            I hope you don’t fall into the last group, and that you are trying to assure a uniform system as you say. The laws you seem to be supporting will not achieve that goal, and are not intended to.

          • InsideEye

            Mea culpa, if i have any faults, Romney lost because he forgot his roots, routes , not because of voter fraud. Romneys tax dodges were the result of congress acting in the interests of PAC groups , and not the interests of the working, savings plan. workers. Unfortunately many corporations hide tax liabilities also…..but they do employ some of us.

            What would you recommend for identifying a voter to prevent multiple votes, by Alzheimer’s citizens , assuming all votes are being counted fairly.

          • FredAppell

            Where can I sign up for that plan?:) I’m really at a loss as to why anyone thinks they are being fairly represented by a “Market System” based insurance plan that is designed to deny certain necessary procedures or medications all for the sake of profit. It
            seems so insane to me. I don’t have a problem with people making money but certainly not at the expense of human lives. You know what Sand_Cat, your last sentence really got my attention, you sound like you’re kidding but I’m sure you and I both agree that someone is probably already considering it.

          • RobertCHastings

            Damn, you are wicked! Love it!

          • InsideEye

            Yes, Sand Cat is a bit wicked, but that makes cats so uniquely aloof until you accidentally catch their tail…tale.?

          • InsideEye

            The market actually does bring costs down in medical treatments , CAT scans, MRIs , great pix to see underlying goings on, and better outcomes, this propagates even more innovation with better techniques overall.

            I’ve never met anyone that opted out of having a Scan to help identifying a suspicious finding to define a diagnosis. No sense in removing a viable uterine growth/formation, when the testicle and appendage should have been removed first.

            Dr. Paul does perform pro bono surgery as other physicians and other professionals may…..lawyers occasionally. There is a write off no doubt, so he has more to give for less fortunate. If you are poor…no write offs…..but Ron Paul is there for you. Even …..hate to say it…..Romney has helped many.

          • Sand_Cat

            Yes, Romney has helped many lose their jobs and the companies they worked for a lifetime to build. He is clearly a selfish and arrogant man who is incredibly dishonest and contemptuous of the rest of us. He may be a wonderful father and a terrific guy to his friends; I can judge him only by his public behavior over the last few years: moral cowardice, flagrant lies, and a presidential campaign primarily dedicated to reducing his already practically non-existent tax bill – relatively speaking – even further while millions go without basic medical care, education, or even enough food.
            Sorry you bought those lies as well.

          • InsideEye

            Did not buy any lies, especially from political figures . I make a great effort to get facts and actually check both sides’ claims. He not a person for whom I would have voted. I hate weakness, a wonderful provider for his family , but he lacked conviction. It is unfortunate that many live on short sound bites and do not demand follow up questioning of candidates on how they would accomplish their lies or how their proposed solutions would impact the common folks? All they do is re iterate that “we have a problem”

            Some media outlets may say…..time is limited….for follow up questioning….but look at how much time is devoted after the elections to the questions that were never asked in the first place, by all the cable network s
            and the once legitimate news journalists on NBC, ABC, FOX. Bob Schieffer of CBC is the only true journalist. All others were not even able to finish a journalism major, the easiest college major next to Home Ec….or Economics. We be in do do.

          • dancerboots

            Then I suggest you get your facts straight and access this web site…You are grossly misinforming with your “facts”.

            http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2012/12/13/obamacare-and-premium-subsidies/

    • InsideEye

      If you are making 30K, you are not eligible for subsididized help, and according to the formulas, you would have to pay ~ 3k in premiums and have the opportunity/liability to pay an additional ~ 6K in out of pocket in an subsidized system. This is still a heft sum for people who can not afford it. We are creating a huge administrative bureaucracy that is in itself more expensive then existing systems. Kaiser foundation.

      • Sand_Cat

        Out-of-pocket you list is what is listed in the article, and about $3000 for premiums isn’t 15,000. And again, complain to the Heritage Foundation if you don’t like it: it’stheir idea, and it still beats the hell out of the current Republican “plan,” accurately summarized as “Don’t get sick and die quickly if you do.”

        • InsideEye

          No, the total could be approx 9k which is an easy mark to hit , all out of pocket. My point was that some people are waiting for ACA, and expecting it to be much cheaper. 9 thousand $ is a lot of money for a $30 K salary after taxes…..= ~ 24K then minus 9,000 15000/yr to live on. Go home and live with parents.

          • InsideEye

            Essentially the “cost / benefit ratio panel ” decides if you are salvageable , and deserve medical treatment from actuarial tables for best outcomes…financial outcomes. The Heritage Foundation only advocates abortions before 20 weeks….no mention of card caring insured folks.

          • Sand_Cat

            So now, the profit-minded insurance company death panel decides if you’re worth it, i.e., can they squeeze more money out of you, or is it best to cut their losses and let you die. I’ll take my chances with the “cost-benefit panel.” Again, if you don’t like it, go whine to your friends at Heritage and all the “gentlemen” of the repugnant party and their “Democratic” allies who made sure the ACA was the best thing considered.

          • InsideEye

            No actuarial group should decide on your end of life care except you and your care taker/ physician. You are over dramatizing and getting all upset about me saying things or thinking things that is not in my thoughts at all. I vote on issues. Most laws/ bills are written by politicians and PAC groups for their self interests and the general population has little input, since we are not allowed to read the laws…..nor do the politicians evidently….Pelosi Rule. Pass first…read later.

          • dancerboots

            Either you are grossly misinformed or a troll. An individual whose annual income falls between $27,075 and $32,090 their share of income is capped at 8.05 to 9.5% of income. Rounding that off. It will be capped at approximately (between) $2160 and $3040. This is the cap. It doesn’t necessarily mean that is what a person will be expected to pay.

            The size of the tax credit depends on your income, your age,
            how many people are in your family, and where you live. – See more at:
            http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2012/12/13/obamacare-and-premium-subsidies/#sthash.lMhxeBak.dpuf

          • InsideEye

            I was responding to a person who was discussing a kaiser foundation calculation for eligibility and I used those figures. There may be additional changes coming everyday. The ACA seems to much ado over a simple solution. Administrative mechanisms already exist within Medicare. It would be easy to use this existing system and add to it, rather than getting the nefarious IRS involved. And creating another admin. buracracy. The IRS seem to be busy enough checking on PAC groups, one sidedly.

        • RobertCHastings

          I am on Medicare and am paying almost $300/month for my Medicare premium, my Part B supplement and my Part D supplement, which means I should get a break come Oct. 1st, since my income on Social Security is NOPLACE NEAR $30K.

          • dancerboots

            How are you paying $300 a month for your medicare premium? It is $104.90 a month for all medicare recipients (unless their income is over $80,000 annually (and that is only including half of Social Security benefits). Have you opted to purchase a Medicare Advantage or supplemental plane? That is not Medicare. At any rate, as a Medicare recipient, you are not eligible for the health insurance through the exchange.

          • RobertCHastings

            Read my post before you get your panties in a wad. My Medicare AND supplements (Part B and Part D) are about $300 per month. No, my supplement is NOT Medicare, it just covers what Part A DOESN’T cover. The Medicare Advantage programs are in the process of being eliminated, although I wish I had gotten one when they were available. Are you on Medicare?

      • Sue Rehnberg

        If you are making 30K, and have NO insurance, and you get, say, a kidney stone and have it removed via an outpatient surgery lastng a grand total of 3 hours in the hospital, like my sister just did, you’ll have to pay the ENTIRE $26K that the hospital charges, plus the various doctor, anesthesiologist, x-ray diagnostics, etc., that come to several more thousand, IN FULL. My sister, on the other hand, who makes about $26K per year, will have that amount reduced by her insurance company to a more realistic amount that will cover the hospital’s ACTUAL expenses, and then she’ll pay 20% of it. She is MUCH better off than you will be without insurance. And yes, the insured will pay EVERY year, even if nothing goes wrong. But it would still take years and years to match what just one tiny illness can cost. And just forget having any money, if, like my sister and millions of others, you have something that is ongoing, like the formation of kidney stones. This happens to her about 3 times every year. Imagine, no insurance. But then, it would actally cost even more, since, with no insurance, they won’t even DO surgery on you until it is an emergency. Then, you can go in and get operated on, and the rest of us taxpayers can pay for your surgery.

        • InsideEye

          I was not advocating against insurance, trying to point out that some are waiting for cheap rates when ACA gets into swing. The out of pocket is not a free ride as one would think. We are essentially gutting an employer based system that works for 85% of citizens with the great medical innovations that we all use for extending life and mitigating pain. Do we want no less?
          Some will quote stats that we are expensive and still birth rates and infant mortality is up. There are other reasons for that.

          • RobertCHastings

            Americans spend on the order of 17% of our GDP on medical care, the highest (by far) of the top 25 wealthiest nations on the planet. Even GB and France only spend about half that percentage of GDP, with better outcomes AND greater life expectancy, and consider how much smaller their GDP is and how much smaller individual incomes are in those two countries.

          • InsideEye

            Better out comes in UK. I remember a favorite statistic of the 1980’s , Britain had a strike of several months of many health care workers including physicians . A retro study at the time noted that there was a 15 % DECREASE. in mortality rates in the UK during this period of the strike. Hospitals are very dangerous places. Do not go unless absolutely necessary . People in US seek medical attention for every minor ailment, because they generally do not see the costs . In Britain you have to wait and cogitate before you may have access and even today that may serve you well , in the USA as well. This happens quite often: a patient I met coming into ER for anemia. …did not see him for a few days, and as he was being discharged, I saw him on crutches…what happened I queried . He fell out of his wheel chair trying to reach for food across the room. Falls are number one incidents among others in hospitals. The French are always on vacation and are never stressed, and the wine ..the ” French Paradox” keeps the populace healthy and too drunk to know if they are sick or not.

          • RobertCHastings

            Anyone, be he British citizen or American tourist (or other non-British) I legally entitled to FREE medical service in the UK if a medical emergency arises.. In most of the European countries, and many others around the world in which their brand of medical care is practiced this is true. Hospitals are very dangerous places ANYWHERE, which is another initiative Obama is pursuing with the ACA – to control sanitation and mistakes in hospitals here that lead to negative outcomes. In the UK, healthcare is managed to an extent we would consider burdensome here because, as you say, we medical treatment for virtually everything. More serious issues in Britain are seen to much more quickly – as quickly as here.
            The single-payer scenario does the same – manages healthcare so as to make resources go the farthest with the best likely outcomes. Our current system is not based upon outcomes, which is wrong and wasteful. Doctors cover themselves from possible litigation by ordering test after test. The threat of litigation has also kept many talented new doctors from entering certain specialties because of the high malpractice insurance rates (based, of course, upon likely high jury awards) – remove lawyers and litigation from the equation and the medical profession would benefit, as would the patients.
            Your “French Paradox” is cute, but not exactly accurate.

          • InsideEye

            Certainly in this country also if you need Emergency care, it is available. Had a chance to to a summer fill in stint in an Arizona border town hospital last summer, found out surprisingly that the hospitals are mandated to take all Mexicans also that require Emergency care…this is an UNFUNDED mandate, that we all pay for. Same happens in Costa Rica, a system rated one notch above US. They have a mix of ways healthcare is a paid including a national sales tax…..which I particularly like since everyone is foreced to contribute and ll of this goes not one pot to pay for health care….no one escapes contributing. Most interestingly is that the Government is at a limit still with funding……Get ready…it seems that Nicaraguans are crossing the border for health care and better educational needs and they are using these systems without a a fair contribution.as stated before ” Where else does this occur…do you suppose “?????? USA hint.

            Even in this country…the animus/angst arises from the paying population. because they support non-payers….The ACA proposed is a heavy burdensome administrative costly nightmare, that could easily be attached to the Medicare system…since it exists already…no involvement by the nefarious IRS……which should be disbanded.

          • RobertCHastings

            How can the Arizona program be unfunded if we pay for it? We STILL pay more for an unwieldy system than other countries do, with poorer outcomes and a lower life expectancy. In other countries, the UK included, the two serious bugaboos that haunt our health system (bankruptcy due to medical costs, and deaths from treatable conditions because the patient does not have insurance)simply do not happen. Those European countries(and Canada) with universal healthcare simply do not suffer from those two issues.

          • InsideEye

            The hospitals must take in anyone coming in due to Emergency Med. Act. They incur the costs , but the border states do not compensate the hospitals for services . Hospitals eat up the cost and close ERs in some cases . Agreed that bankruptcy due to medical bills should never be allowed. Again laws are written by politicians for PAC groups, citizens have no say. I personally advocate a single payer system, everyone having a credit/ voucher and pick your own plan paid for a National sales tax……that EVERYONE certainly contributes…NO WAY OF CHEATING THIS.

          • RobertCHastings

            Let’s see, the border states, you mean Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico? Rick Perry, governor of Texas sucks up Federal money like a vampire sucking blood, but is shutting down virtually every program that funnels funds to the poor and needy. Jan Brewer of Arizona is doing pretty much the same thing, supported by sheriffs like Joe Arpaio who can’t read the Constitution and wouldn’t support it if he could read it. And I don’t know who the gov. of New Mexico is, so I won’t comment on that. IF your state leaders refuse to admit that there are poverty issues, then their actions will reflect that. While the Federal government provide funds to pay for emergency rooms, these funds are as grants, left largely up to the discretion of locals.

      • FredAppell

        Where did you get those numbers from? I went to two different
        Kaiser Family Foundation links and there was no mention of those kinds of figures. I even sat through a 6 minute video that explained in simple terms what we should all expect and the figures were nowhere near that high.
        In case you’re right, I don’t even gross 30k a year so by your own figures, that makes me eligible for subsidized care.

        • InsideEye

          It was referenced in article ” kaiser Foundation Subsidy Calculator” link above. Check it out see what your interpretation is.
          . Obama was looking for a 75 subsidy just for his confessional staff so they would pay less. This is in a high state of Flux it seems,!with waives for many, there will probably remain 15% still uninsured. Seems like a lot of wasted activity and animus .

          • FredAppell

            I will check that out, but in all fairness the video did say that those who remain uninsured may be more affected by the states they live in and if they do have to pay the tax or fine (whichever you prefer to call it) as mandated, depending on the circumstance, the government may waive the fine. I agree with you on one major point, if the mandate can be waived, it does seem like a waste of time to even have it in the first place. In time it will probably be dissolved.

      • dancerboots

        You are wrong.
        Under the current program, states have varying income requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Thirty three states currently limit coverage to income levels below the federal poverty line,and 17 of those states will only cover families who are bringing in less than half of the income at the federal poverty level. In five states — Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas — a family of
        three with an annual income over $5,000 makes too much money to receive any Medicaid assistance.

        Obamacare establishes a new eligibility level for Medicaid above the
        current poverty line of $18,530 for a working family of three. Effective
        in 2014, the expansion will allow families who make up to $26,344 to be eligible for (Medicaid) coverage under the program. That would make a huge difference for low-income working families in states like Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana who are not currently considered poor enough to qualify despite the fact that they are living in poverty by federal standards. However, those states’ Republican governors are choosing to deny their state’s low-income residents health care coverage.

        If governors reject the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, the families whose
        income falls between the federal poverty line and the new $26,344 income level may receive subsidies to help them participate in the health insurance exchanges that will be set up in 2014. But the estimated 11 million families who fall under the poverty line but above their state’s Medicaid eligibility line will be left in the cold, unable to receive either Medicaid benefits or subsidies. i.e Any family of three that have income over $5000 and under $26,344 will be ineligible to receive Medicaid or subsidized health insurance through the exchange in Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Texas, etc if their governors refuse to opt into Obamacare.

        However, for those states that opt into Obamacare:
        Not only low-income, but moderate-income families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) – currently $44,680 for a single person and $92,200 for a family of four – will make the cut. Within that group, households bringing in less than 250 percent of the FPL ($27,925for a single person, $57,625 for a family of four) also will be eligible for help without-of-pocket costs.- See more at:
        http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2012/12/13/obamacare-and-premium-subsidies/#sthash.lMhxeBak.dpuf

  • doninsd

    As I’ve asked before : How damned stupid do you have to be to get run out of Texas all the way to Kentucky?

    • Allan Richardson

      Was he run out of Texas or did Kentucky have less competition in the “stupid” category? They did produce Lincoln, so they can’t be all bad.

  • Dominick Vila

    What surprises me the most about Rand Paul’s tantrum and rants is the fact that some Americans listen to him and support his ideas. The good news is that his immature claims, threats, and what he believes are solutions may do more harm to the GOP chances in years to come than anything Democratic strategists could come up with. Threatening programs such as Social Security and MEDICARE may be acceptable in a Tea Party rally, it is poison at a national level. The same will soon be true for the insistence to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The reasons some Republicans insist on derailing the implementation of ACA by defunding it include the fact that after rejecting their own idea, they now have no choice but to ride the pony they bet on, and have no choice but to count on tens of thousands of uninsured Republicans voicing their discontent when they have to pay for part of their insurance premiums instead of relying on President Reagan’s socialist Emergency Room medical care. What they fear the most is a plurality of the American public seeing and accepting the obvious benefits of ACA. If that happens, the GOP is likely to become irrelevant for many years to come, and there is a good chance the party will have no choice but to pursue an ideological split.

    • Allan Richardson

      They just need to rebrand their plan. Call it the PDQ plan, that sounds fast and efficient. Just don’t mention that PDQ stands for “Please die quickly.”

      • RobertCHastings

        OUCH!

  • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

    Sorry, folks, but the term “reality” has no place in an article about Rand Paul. Like many of his compatriots (and I use the 2nd and 3rd syllables loosely here), he only has an imaginary concept of how things exist, based on his readings of Ayn Rand. Not on the facts of her actual life (an atheist who willingly subscribed to and utilized her government backed health care program).

    • Allan Richardson

      As Mr. Oliver’s “conservative” colleague Stephen Colbert says, “Reality has a well known liberal bias.”

  • Allan Richardson

    I can just see someone calling 911 for a medical emergency under the Randian philosophy: “Please enter your credit card number …” then “I’m sorry, your credit card has been declined. Have a nice afterlife.”

    • docb

      Wee randi does not know from ‘reality’…Her is a troll under the bridge dolt!

  • John Wells

    $500 for Lasik? After a bald faced lie like that how can any thing he say be taken seriously?

  • Leftflank

    Thank you Ryand for exposing the shallow ideology of the clueless Libertarian mind.

    It works until it doesn’t work then you jump on the government bandwagon. Commitment like that is rare.

  • MikeInAlabama

    Why do people forget that Rand Paul created his own accrediting agency so he wouldn’t actually have to meet the requirements of other ophthalmologists? Of course he doesn’t understand insurance.

scroll to top